I am confused about the correct pronunciation of consecutive vowels - I have several recordings (both from Cambridge University Press and Bolchazy-Carducci) that include a glottal stop between the two vowels in words like "mortuus" or "filii." But "Vox Latina" does not seem to mention an intervocalic glottal stop (I will cofess I've only browsed the book, not read it cover to cover).

I am willing to accept the glottal stop if it's correct, but it sounds awful. I speculate they use it in recordings to make the point that the vowels are separate syllables. Can anyone clarify?

This makes it sound as if the 'u' vowels in "mortuus" rather blend together â€” they do, to an extent. A sensitive ear can pick up the difference. But inscriptional evidence (e.g. "mortus") confirms that Roman ears also detected a natural blending. But yes, two short syllables.

Imagine, in sheet music, two tied quarter notes that bridge a measure. They have the same sound as a half note on the same pitch â€” but rhythmically it is important to separate them as quarter notes since they are not in the same measure. Latin is similar. Does that analogy help?

I like your music metaphor and will remember it, although I was actually not having trouble pronouncing two syllables without a glottal stop - there is a nearly identical rule in Macedonian, which I speak fluently (for example, "they love" is "sakaat" - two flowing, musical syllables at the end with no intervocalic glottal stop). I was just struggling with its prevalence in recorded Latin. I will assume that is for the sake of clarity, but I still think it sounds awful.

Lucus Eques wrote:Imagine, in sheet music, two tied quarter notes that bridge a measure. They have the same sound as a half note on the same pitch â€” but rhythmically it is important to separate them as quarter notes since they are not in the same measure.

Say what ?!

Normally tied notes receive a single excitation (on the first event, of course), no secondary rhythmic emphasis takes place.

Replace "rhythmically" with "orthographically" and I'm with you.

In a word like mortuus the final vowels are both articulated, but I agree that a glottal stop is incorrect. The vowels can be elided without extinguishing the quantities. This is actually close to a notational phenomenon in certain works by Beethoven, where two tied notes each receive an articulation mark, something possible only with wind instruments or bowed strings. Is that what you had in mind ?

IIRC such words eventually contracted adjacent vowels into a single syllable in later Lain and its derivatives.

Interesting, this thread came up just as I was ruminating about how to render the difference between cum and quum, on the Latinum podcast. Even before I had seen this thread, I had decided that the difference would be very subtle indeed, just a very very slight flow-through, as c and qu (Allen's rendering of this is 'Kw') are in practical terms identical, with qu simply pronounced with a slight protrusion of the lips, (Allen) giving it a slight vowel quality, but I still wanted to distinguish them, although technically this isn't a full example of a doubled vowel. I am always conscious of Cicero's quote about the musicality of Latin when spoken. I don't believe I have rendered it properly yet, but I will get this subtle sound nailed down soon enough after a few dozen more attempts at pronouncing it....
Evan Millner